quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Only as long as others claim that more guns mean more crime or that carrying a gun increases your odds of being a victim of violent crime, etc.

That has been proved over and over to be untrue. Gun ownership in cuba is pretty close to 100%. Yes the govt down there is paranoid that the u.s. will attack them again but their gun crime rate is pretty low. The swiss seem to be pretty well armed also but no concurent level of gun crime. It would appear that you don't know much about gun crime or it's causes.

By itself, that could be a curious finding. Yet both those nations have several other things going on around it. During the time Somalia was in anarchy, everyone had guns, and there was tons of crimes going on (petty on up to 'crimes against humanity'). Syria has plenty of guns, and huge amounts of crime.

Likewise, which nation has the biggest square footage of prison space: A ) Sweden, B ) Cuba, or C ) The United States of America.

I'm simply saying that there are an abundance of other factors at work, that bring a nation's crime rate low or high. The availability of firearms does not have as much significance as those in some circles would have the nation/world believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Only as long as others claim that more guns mean more crime or that carrying a gun increases your odds of being a victim of violent crime, etc.

That has been proved over and over to be untrue. Gun ownership in cuba is pretty close to 100%. Yes the govt down there is paranoid that the u.s. will attack them again but their gun crime rate is pretty low. The swiss seem to be pretty well armed also but no concurent level of gun crime. It would appear that you don't know much about gun crime or it's causes.

By itself, that could be a curious finding. Yet both those nations have several other things going on around it. During the time Somalia was in anarchy, everyone had guns, and there was tons of crimes going on (petty on up to 'crimes against humanity'). Syria has plenty of guns, and huge amounts of crime.

Likewise, which nation has the biggest square footage of prison space: A ) Sweden, B ) Cuba, or C ) The United States of America.

I'm simply saying that there are an abundance of other factors at work, that bring a nation's crime rate low or high. The availability of firearms does not have as much significance as those in some circles would have the nation/world believe.

Without realizing it you have made a strong argument against gun control.
As you have pointed out crime rates are what they are regardless of gun control and the availability of firearms. I have said that in this country demographics are the major reason for our having a greater drop in crime than virtually any country in the world. That said the balance of evidence indicates that cc has a positive affect on crime rates. Further since the vast preponderance of evidence demonstrate that at worst our right to bear arms has no affect on crime there is no justification for repealing a constitutional right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Only as long as others claim that more guns mean more crime or that carrying a gun increases your odds of being a victim of violent crime, etc.

That has been proved over and over to be untrue. Gun ownership in cuba is pretty close to 100%. Yes the govt down there is paranoid that the u.s. will attack them again but their gun crime rate is pretty low. The swiss seem to be pretty well armed also but no concurent level of gun crime. It would appear that you don't know much about gun crime or it's causes.

By itself, that could be a curious finding. Yet both those nations have several other things going on around it. During the time Somalia was in anarchy, everyone had guns, and there was tons of crimes going on (petty on up to 'crimes against humanity'). Syria has plenty of guns, and huge amounts of crime.

Likewise, which nation has the biggest square footage of prison space: A ) Sweden, B ) Cuba, or C ) The United States of America.

I'm simply saying that there are an abundance of other factors at work, that bring a nation's crime rate low or high. The availability of firearms does not have as much significance as those in some circles would have the nation/world believe.

Without realizing it you have made a strong argument against gun control.
As you have pointed out crime rates are what they are regardless of gun control and the availability of firearms. I have said that in this country demographics are the major reason for our having a greater drop in crime than virtually any country in the world. That said the balance of evidence indicates that cc has a positive affect on crime rates. Further since the vast preponderance of evidence demonstrate that at worst our right to bear arms has no affect on crime there is no justification for repealing a constitutional right.

How much does 'cc' stop identity theft? That's a growing problem within this nation.

Crime rates and the availability of firearms does not have enough supporting evidence to join the two together. I realize you have about nine thousand links to state to the contray. Yet, when I say 'Lets test these ideas in a series of experiments', not one gun nut has the balls to step forward and say 'yeah, lets find out what works and what is a myth'. We could create something really good for this nation's health and future; but your totally afraid of stepping forward.

I'm not for banning firearms (unless Americans become REALLY retarded with them), nor heavily restricting them. I am in favor of keeping the chance of such arms falling into the wrong hands to the absolute minimal. We can sit here an argue statistic after statistic, and where do we get? No where? Why? We have a few hundred threads proving that already! When it comes to the amount of testing this nation has produced with automobiles, the vehicles of today are much better than those from the 1950s. Yet when automobile testing is compared to the amount of testing with firearms, its like comparing a mountain to a mole hill.

If someone brings forth an idea or concept, BamaD, you strike at them with full force. Are you really that afraid of having ideas tested? Finding which things work for us as a nation, and removing those that don't? Hell, I've even gone so far to proposed setting the 2nd to dealing with 'militia like groups', and creating a new amendment that deals with self defense as a matter of personal liberty. And when I stated it, what has happened? 'Crickets and tumbleweeds' from the other 'side'. You have a firearm not for being free, but afraid of something undefined that might hurt you (the sad reality is that firearm may not even help you at all). That's not liberty, that's self-imprisonment.

Why is there so many court cases involving the 2nd, but a tiny fraction with the 3rd? Because the 3rd is well defined for its purpose. Your trying to use something that was never intended to work at an individual level, apart and away from a formalized structure, rules, and penalties. An that has created numerous problems. The saddest thing this nation's people is losing, is trust in one another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

More trolling, no more and no less.

Are you two idiots going to start a new thread every time someone is attacked, just to try and prove carrying guns is a good thing ?

No need to reply, it was a rhetorical question.

If they do are you going to visit each one to show us how much of an ass you can be?

No need to reply, it was a rhetorical question.

You have always been a troll with little to add to any issue. Do you really think Bama and Subrosa are starting these type of threads over and over because they care about the victims ? They dont, they are trolling, just as Sanity is with his constant attacks on Obama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Only as long as others claim that more guns mean more crime or that carrying a gun increases your odds of being a victim of violent crime, etc.

That has been proved over and over to be untrue. Gun ownership in cuba is pretty close to 100%. Yes the govt down there is paranoid that the u.s. will attack them again but their gun crime rate is pretty low. The swiss seem to be pretty well armed also but no concurent level of gun crime. It would appear that you don't know much about gun crime or it's causes.

By itself, that could be a curious finding. Yet both those nations have several other things going on around it. During the time Somalia was in anarchy, everyone had guns, and there was tons of crimes going on (petty on up to 'crimes against humanity'). Syria has plenty of guns, and huge amounts of crime.

Likewise, which nation has the biggest square footage of prison space: A ) Sweden, B ) Cuba, or C ) The United States of America.

I'm simply saying that there are an abundance of other factors at work, that bring a nation's crime rate low or high. The availability of firearms does not have as much significance as those in some circles would have the nation/world believe.

Without realizing it you have made a strong argument against gun control.
As you have pointed out crime rates are what they are regardless of gun control and the availability of firearms. I have said that in this country demographics are the major reason for our having a greater drop in crime than virtually any country in the world. That said the balance of evidence indicates that cc has a positive affect on crime rates. Further since the vast preponderance of evidence demonstrate that at worst our right to bear arms has no affect on crime there is no justification for repealing a constitutional right.

How much does 'cc' stop identity theft? That's a growing problem within this nation.

Crime rates and the availability of firearms does not have enough supporting evidence to join the two together. I realize you have about nine thousand links to state to the contray. Yet, when I say 'Lets test these ideas in a series of experiments', not one gun nut has the balls to step forward and say 'yeah, lets find out what works and what is a myth'. We could create something really good for this nation's health and future; but your totally afraid of stepping forward.

I'm not for banning firearms (unless Americans become REALLY retarded with them), nor heavily restricting them. I am in favor of keeping the chance of such arms falling into the wrong hands to the absolute minimal. We can sit here an argue statistic after statistic, and where do we get? No where? Why? We have a few hundred threads proving that already! When it comes to the amount of testing this nation has produced with automobiles, the vehicles of today are much better than those from the 1950s. Yet when automobile testing is compared to the amount of testing with firearms, its like comparing a mountain to a mole hill.

If someone brings forth an idea or concept, BamaD, you strike at them with full force. Are you really that afraid of having ideas tested? Finding which things work for us as a nation, and removing those that don't? Hell, I've even gone so far to proposed setting the 2nd to dealing with 'militia like groups', and creating a new amendment that deals with self defense as a matter of personal liberty. And when I stated it, what has happened? 'Crickets and tumbleweeds' from the other 'side'. You have a firearm not for being free, but afraid of something undefined that might hurt you (the sad reality is that firearm may not even help you at all). That's not liberty, that's self-imprisonment.

Why is there so many court cases involving the 2nd, but a tiny fraction with the 3rd? Because the 3rd is well defined for its purpose. Your trying to use something that was never intended to work at an individual level, apart and away from a formalized structure, rules, and penalties. An that has created numerous problems. The saddest thing this nation's people is losing, is trust in one another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Why is it when a puffed up little boy gets called on his trolling, he always returns with "well you're a troll" as a response?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

More trolling, no more and no less.

Are you two idiots going to start a new thread every time someone is attacked, just to try and prove carrying guns is a good thing ?

No need to reply, it was a rhetorical question.

If they do are you going to visit each one to show us how much of an ass you can be?

No need to reply, it was a rhetorical question.

You have always been a troll with little to add to any issue. Do you really think Bama and Subrosa are starting these type of threads over and over because they care about the victims ? They dont, they are trolling, just as Sanity is with his constant attacks on Obama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

More trolling, no more and no less.

Are you two idiots going to start a new thread every time someone is attacked, just to try and prove carrying guns is a good thing ?

No need to reply, it was a rhetorical question.

If they do are you going to visit each one to show us how much of an ass you can be?

No need to reply, it was a rhetorical question.

You have always been a troll with little to add to any issue. Do you really think Bama and Subrosa are starting these type of threads over and over because they care about the victims ? They dont, they are trolling, just as Sanity is with his constant attacks on Obama.

Exactly. I don't care at all about the victims. I hope they all die. In fact, that's not enough. I hope they all slowly die whilst being roasted over open fires. Instead, I devote my life to the criminals. I hope they take over the world. Because I am so heartless that I wish for everyone in the world I care about to be at the mercy of felons, while I spend most of my days going to funerals. Oh, yes, I am also a Nazi, a member of the KKK, a supporter of Kim Jong-un and give all my income to his Camp 22 to support the torture and starvation of political prisoners and their children. Because, PoliteSub53, that's just the kind of person I am. But you know what's worse than all of that? Yes, I am a troll. Such a bad troll that I am in a 12-step program for trolls. Maybe I will recover. Wish me luck. In the meantime, I bow to your superior wisdom and lack of trollness. It is, frankly, awe-inspiring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I must be doing a better job of this than I thought when people use comments to other people to bravely attack me when they know I have them on hide and will not see their post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Again you have gone off the deep end, of course concealed carry won't stop identity theft but then that isn't the type of crime it is intended to. You have made a stupid analogy and pretend it has some bearing on the conversation, which of course it doesn't. Concealed carry isn't the cause of the breakdown in trust, if anything it is the result. You are arguing against things I never said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
As for you not wanting to ban guns you insist that there is no right to bear arms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Again you have gone off the deep end, of course concealed carry won't stop identity theft but then that isn't the type of crime it is intended to. You have made a stupid analogy and pretend it has some bearing on the conversation, which of course it doesn't. Concealed carry isn't the cause of the breakdown in trust, if anything it is the result. You are arguing against things I never said.

Yes, anyone whom doesn't agree with you 100% of the time is crazy.

Conceal carry, will not help in 99.999% of problems. They can help in some situations, and that is not argued. But then, there are many other weapon systems available to a person that could also remove/reduce a threat. There is not a 'silver bullet' for self defense; one thing that will protect a person against all hostile things. Unless your a super heroes with invulnerability, instant regeneration, immunity to diseases and toxins, and do not need food, water, or oxygen to survive. We are 'a bit' far from technology like that....

You really do not understand what I'm getting at in the 'break down of trust' between Americans on this and other issues. You think it has to do with CC laws? That shows how little you understand the concept.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
As for you not wanting to ban guns you insist that there is no right to bear arms.

Oh, whose putting words in whose mouth now? You don't like it when its done to you, but if you do it to someone else, its 'ok'....

I've explained to you my position on the 2nd amendment pretty well. A very in depth and thought out set of ideas in the past. I even gone the extra mile to make a compromised in making an actual amendment based directly around the idea of self defense being a liberty worth protecting. An what do I get from you? Total, absolute silence! You want people to agree with your view on the 2nd....or else. Now who sounds like the tyrant? Oh that's right, having a gun instantly makes you immune from ever being a tyrant towards your fellow America...I 'forgot'....

I never stated there is no "...right to bear arms.". I have stated it belongs to the same amendment as "A well regulated militia...". You want to ignore the first half the amendment and reinterpret the second half as you wish. And I pointed out in previous posts the real dangers of applying that same 'philosophy' to other amendments. And you didn't seem to like the 'changes' I made in applying your 'philosophy' on the 2nd to say, the 8th amendment. So if its wrong to ignore/reinterpret the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights, the same should apply to the 2nd amendment.

Unlike you, I don't view things in black and white. There is a huge amount of grey between the black and white of this issue. That individuals could have access to firearms, since not everyone lives in a safe neighborhood. Nor does everyone live in country or the city. That there exists quite a depth of room to debate the individual merits of specific concepts related to firearms. And the willingness to balance 'what's good for the community' and 'what's good for the individual'. You desperately wish to cast me as 'the enemy' in the zero sum game you have going on. An I'm not going to play that game of yours. Since it means one side has to win...totally, and the other side has to lose...totally. An that mentality is setting this nation up for more sorrow and anger (and it really doesn't need more of either) For gun nuts to win totally would be...exceedingly bad to the nation and its citizens. For the gun controllers to win, would be exceedingly bad as well. For gun owners and concern citizens to get together, decide the laws and issues without the gun nuts/controllers interfering in the process, would be the best possible outcome. The game I would rather play is one in which we figure out where we agree on, set that aside. Then find out where else we disagree and how deeply we want that concept to exist into law. That to have something we want, we give up something else as a compromise. That way, everyone gets something they want. Or have you never read how the 1st and 2nd amendments were originally debated and formed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Your trying to use something that was never intended to work at an individual level, apart and away from a formalized structure, rules, and penalties.

You are obviously unaware of the purpose of the militia. When you get a grip on that you might read some of the stuff that patrick henry and george mason had to say about the reasons they needed personal firearms. Give the anti federalist papers as good a read as you gave the federalist papers. The issues the anti federalist raised are the same ones being raised to day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The saddest thing this nation's people is losing, is trust in one another.

You cannot loose what you never had.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Our friend joether doesn't traffic much in facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


As to why I replied, well, being an idiot, .......